Forwarded message:

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:25:51 -0400 From: "Philip A. Mongelluzzo" <phimon@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: spam on this list

I support the constitution. In the case of the first ammendment: The freedom it allows you, or whoever, to send spam and indulge in child pornography is the same freedom provided to those who say those ideas are wrong. Got it?

But it isn't the same as you present it. I will explain below.

How do we deal with child pornography and free speech in such a way as to allow both to exist and insure our children are not exposed to pornographic material until they are at a maturity level where they can deal with it?

Let's look at this carefuly for a moment. Child pornography in and of itself is irrelevant. The issue is sexual acts involving one or more children by adults which are committed with (or without) the specific intent of creating some physical record for personal use or to pass to others (with or without profit). Now let's contrast this with a simple pencil drawing of a child and an adult having sex (eg. Greek pottery). The question is are these two acts, one involving a real physical act involving a minor, and the other as a physical expression of the artists imagination equivalent? Some would have you believe they are the same. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a clear explanation of the view. Now the other side is that they are different. This belief rests on at least two basic tenents. The first being that it is the physical act that constitutes the crime and not simply thinking about it. The second is that there is a fundamental difference of quality between an item and its representation in some symbology. From this it becomes clear that the issue is how do we reduce the initial sexual contact. If THAT can be resolved the other problems resolve themselves. Now, let's assume for a moment that we have in fact resolved this issue. Should we then regulate representations of these acts by persons when it is assumed no actual child was involved? The representation is nothing more than the ramblings of an expressive mind. So are we not making certain thought illegal? This certainly contrasts with the belief that a crime requires an act. That doesn't sound very rational to me. And what about if I don't draw it but rather write a story? Or perhaps use my image editor to take children bathing suite adds and medical sources to fill it out, why should this be any different than a written description? Or perhaps that image on the Greek pot? No, these sort of line drawing was meant to be prohibited by the Constitution. The founding fathers must have known the world was a gray sort of place so they took special precautions (ie 10 Amendments) to make nice and clear boundaries for the federal government (ie 1'st Amendment). It is clear that they expressely did not want the government involved in human expression.

If pornography is the enemy of crypto then that is enemy that must be fought.

This is a straw man. There is no crypto involved in the physical act. Nice strawman argument though, got almost the whole damn world swallowing at this point....

A battle that must be won without killing the enemy to insure continued free speech. Quite a challenge I think.

Only if you are confused about exactly what the issue at hand is. We need diagnostic proceedures usable by regular physicians and the issue really needs to be handled as a medical and not a legal issue. Putting people in jail won't effect this sort of human behaviour one damn bit. By the time the guy gets to jail some poor kid has been really abused, is that how you want your kid dealt with? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|